Dieting Weight Loss and the TRUTH

For years now, we've been told to avoid carbohydrates, particularly foods high in starch. But what if everything we’ve heard was backwards?

Cutting through the smoke and mirrors of the diet industry, physician and nutrition expert Dr. John A. McDougall joins Connie Willis (email) in the first half to discuss what he calls the propaganda machine that is pushing dangerous, high-fat fad diets.

Followed by Controlled Remote Viewing expert Lori Williams, who reports an a recent 2-week summit that took remote viewers deeper than they've ever gone before, including the targeting of a squadron that disappeared in the Bermuda Triangle back in the 1950s.

From 6-10pm PT, Art Bell: Somewhere in Timereturns to 2/1/02 when Pam Reynolds, who was clinically dead during surgery for an aneurysm, shared her amazing near-death-experience.

Picking and choosing between macronutrients is all the craze today. It helps write columns for magazines, creates new book themes, new menus for restaurants...

The body has muscle content. That muscle was made and is there for a purpose. Use it, because it is the ONLY place that fat burns..

(See "Krebs Cycle") and get the scientific facts. Fat burns in the face of Carbohydrate.

Any deficit of calories will cause you to lose weight, but what would you rather look like, a muscular "Medium" with a 30" waist or a thin-fatty who is thin but still jiggles like jello?

If you are going to cut calories, don't just cut, add some weight-training and some cardio training.

If muscle is the only place that fat burns, it makes pretty good sense to build as much as possible.

You can get down to 6% fat-burning machine at 180 lbs. or you can get to a 28% non-fat burning jiggly-skeleton at 180.

There are many ways to burn fat. Do it the right way and you will look good, do it the wrong way, and you'll look like death, warmed-over. Starve yourself. Your body will eat all your muscle up and leave the fat.... why?

As I Said, fat only burns in muscle content.

If you starve down, or have your stomach stapled, it doesn't take long to get fat again, and the body is extremely capable.

Look at pictures of the Auschwitz victims stacked in piles. They didn't actually "starve to death"... they just couldn't burn energy anymore. If you look closely you can see the skeletal system... and loads of fat in between. Not the greatest analogy, but often times people have noticed that the bodies in those old black and white pictures look thin.. and fat. These people worked physically hard everyday... on no calories. If they had (had) muscle to burn, which they did in the beginning, even the lack of food would not have killed them.. until the muscle was gone. Eaten by the body.. like cannibalism of the body's muscle content.

Once people understand this, they usually will stop looking for the quick fix or magic pill and start hitting the gym and paying attention to how many calories they actually ingest on a daily basis. Keeping track of these calories is usually quite the surprise for most folks at the end of the day.

"I thought I was eating good..."

Well, you were. Eating good enough to stay fat.

Much different than a bodybuilders body who is just simply in a slight caloric deficit.

For years now, we've been told to avoid carbohydrates, particularly foods high in starch. But what if everything we’ve heard was backwards?

Cutting through the smoke and mirrors of the diet industry, physician and nutrition expert Dr. John A. McDougall joins Connie Willis (email) in the first half to discuss what he calls the propaganda machine that is pushing dangerous, high-fat fad diets.

Followed by Controlled Remote Viewing expert Lori Williams, who reports an a recent 2-week summit that took remote viewers deeper than they've ever gone before, including the targeting of a squadron that disappeared in the Bermuda Triangle back in the 1950s.

From 6-10pm PT, Art Bell: Somewhere in Timereturns to 2/1/02 when Pam Reynolds, who was clinically dead during surgery for an aneurysm, shared her amazing near-death-experience.

Picking and choosing between macronutrients is all the craze today. It helps write columns for magazines, creates new book themes, new menus for restaurants...

The body has muscle content. That muscle was made and is there for a purpose. Use it, because it is the ONLY place that fat burns..

(See "Krebs Cycle") and get the scientific facts. Fat burns in the face of Carbohydrate.

Any deficit of calories will cause you to lose weight, but what would you rather look like, a muscular "Medium" with a 30" waist or a thin-fatty who is thin but still jiggles like jello?

If you are going to cut calories, don't just cut, add some weight-training and some cardio training.

If muscle is the only place that fat burns, it makes pretty good sense to build as much as possible.

You can get down to 6% fat-burning machine at 180 lbs. or you can get to a 28% non-fat burning jiggly-skeleton at 180.

There are many ways to burn fat. Do it the right way and you will look good, do it the wrong way, and you'll look like death, warmed-over. Starve yourself. Your body will eat all your muscle up and leave the fat.... why?

As I Said, fat only burns in muscle content.

If you starve down, or have your stomach stapled, it doesn't take long to get fat again, and the body is extremely capable.

Look at pictures of the Auschwitz victims stacked in piles. They didn't actually "starve to death"... they just couldn't burn energy anymore. If you look closely you can see the skeletal system... and loads of fat in between. Not the greatest analogy, but often times people have noticed that the bodies in those old black and white pictures look thin.. and fat. These people worked physically hard everyday... on no calories. If they had (had) muscle to burn, which they did in the beginning, even the lack of food would not have killed them.. until the muscle was gone. Eaten by the body.. like cannibalism of the body's muscle content.

Once people understand this, they usually will stop looking for the quick fix or magic pill and start hitting the gym and paying attention to how many calories they actually ingest on a daily basis. Keeping track of these calories is usually quite the surprise for most folks at the end of the day.

"I thought I was eating good..."

Well, you were. Eating good enough to stay fat.

Much different than a bodybuilders body who is just simply in a slight caloric deficit.

Click to expand...

6% is unhealthy.
Normal/healthy for women is 24%-30%.
Normal/healthy for.men is 18%-25%.

Hard-core athletes often fall.way below these numbers, but even for them, 6% is unhealthy.

6% is unhealthy.
Normal/healthy for women is 24%-30%.
Normal/healthy for.men is 18%-25%.

Hard-core athletes often fall.way below these numbers, but even for them, 6% is unhealthy.

Click to expand...

I would debate that, but at the same time, I was kind of addressing the men here by saying "medium" and size 30" waist as opposed to a size 5 dress...

The norm, the BMI.. all that, mean nothing to me. It's like grading on a curve.

I've been in the single digits of bodyfat for over 30 years now. I don't have any health issues other than my low back... and a huge mental disorder...

I would say that those numbers you threw out are a bit high. It's like grading on a curve. As the nation gets fatter, the "normal" number goes up.

I really don't want to argue and I'm not saying that you are arguing. I'm just going to disagree about the health issues.

A healthy male could have abs at 9- 11% and be healthy, but this is a bit subjective. Believe it or not, genetics and ethnicity play a huge (no pun intended) roll... oops.. "role"

A woman, yeah, she has to carry more fat and she is going to. She has less Testosterone (but she gets more and more as she ages) hence the mustaches and hairs in places they dont want to talk about... Men also have Estrogen. Men with wider hips and narrow shoulders have more estrogen than the "mesomorph" who has wide clavicles and a narrow waist and hips.

Women should not drop below the bodyfat level that induces amenorrhea.... I have seen many women stay at 11% for most of the year and then diet down in the summer. They are fine... I mean .. "healthy... and fine?

The BMI just flat "does NOT work" as far as judging true bodyfat levels. The best method is.. well the mirror.. of course, a calipers, or since fat floats and muscle sinks.... a water immersion test. The mirror will tell you.

At the same time, if you are happy with how you look and your name is Jim Gaffigan.. well... O.K... but he jokes about his mortality... for now.

I can qualify my statements with science but I think what is really important is that you have no underlying health issues, especially the ones that come from being overweight like diabetes 1 and 2 (and now they have discovered a 3) high BP, high cholesterol, osteoperosis, osteo arthritiis, atherosclerosis... the list goes on.... sleep apnea is becoming another big... uhmmm.. yeah, big one.

Some people say "i'm happy the way I am" that's fine. Are they healthy? Well, I'm not a health practitioner... but I do have some qualifications. Since people are asking questions, Im just throwing out my two - cents worth.

Nobody has to run around in the single digit bodyfat levels to be healthy. Its a ***** in cold weather, but I wouldnt say that it is unhealthy for a man. Google "Clarence Bass" this man got all the way down to 2 or 3 % in his 60's and he has also maintained the single (low) digits on a vegetarian diet no less... and I belive he is in his seventies now.

Each to his own.

I was just trying to defy the Carbohydrate myth. That is why I mentioned the Krebs Cycle. Better yet, a couple of books: Fat Nation by Critser, any of Clarence Bass' books "ripped" series, or the old (best book ever written) "Fit or Fat" by Covert Bailey.

A couple of scientific books on nutrition (with references) like "Total Nutrition, the Only Guide you'll ever Need" from the Mt Sinai School of Medicine....

If people want to educate themselves without reading the garbage rags that change their minds every issue or the T.V. shows that are basically infomercials.....these are the books to read.. and re-read fo sho... ten fo

I've been as low as 16% measured by some sort of radio wave device. I was 128 lb. at the time. When I was in the Navy, I always had to be taped because I was always just over the threshold on the chart. I taped at 25%. I'm probably running about 30% now. Haven't been measured in years and my middle has expanded a bit.

If you're able to maintain single digits, that's pretty impressive. I would feel sick, weak and cold if I was anywhere near that. Had my weight down to 119 (5'4") and felt like crap. Don't know what my body fat content was. I wasn't exercising regularly at the time. Just wasn't eating much.

BMI is ****. It doesn't mean a thing and I have no idea why it's in use at all. It's lazy, completely inaccurate and grossly unfair. Somebody who works out all the time, like you, would come in on that disaster as obese, which is ridiculous.

I've been as low as 16% measured by some sort of radio wave device. I was 128 lb. at the time. When I was in the Navy, I always had to be taped because I was always just over the threshold on the chart. I taped at 25%. I'm probably running about 30% now. Haven't been measured in years and my middle has expanded a bit.

If you're able to maintain single digits, that's pretty impressive. I would feel sick, weak and cold if I was anywhere near that. Had my weight down to 119 (5'4") and felt like crap. Don't know what my body fat content was. I wasn't exercising regularly at the time. Just wasn't eating much.

BMI is ****. It doesn't mean a thing and I have no idea why it's in use at all. It's lazy, completely inaccurate and grossly unfair. Somebody who works out all the time, like you, would come in on that disaster as obese, which is ridiculous.

(p.s. I'm not arguing either. Just chatting.)

Click to expand...

I wasn't implying that you are using the BMI... doctors like to use it. It's fast, but it ain't accurate. I just think it's funny because I'm a pretty short dude... with a high BMI... and then I lift my shirt and he just scratches his head, but I've explained the difference between BMI and bodyfat levels. Also, again.. genetics play a huge role. Certain races of people are genetically gifted in the athletic dept and the low bodyfat dept.

I notice as I get older that weight is just weight. Carrying extra weight even if it is muscle isn't super healthy. It works you towards higher BP, but you won't get fat.

I went through many years of trial and tribulation achieving low bodyfat and maintaining muscle content. Most people figure: you wanna lose; eat less, gain; eat more. Well, if you randomly do that without keeping a record, you end up a thin-fatty... which there is an abundance of in my gym. They just hit the treadmill for a couple of hours a day, once in the morning, once at night, chew up all their muscle (their body's ability to burn fat).. they eat poorly.. and there is a group that steps outside the door and has a smoke.

When your lungs are wide open and your heart is pounding is prob not the best time to have a cigarette, but hey....

Once I got to a certain level (which was 6%) my body felt happy there. Any extra calories for a few days made no difference, not eating for a few made no difference. They call it "homeostasis" all things being equal.

This is a curse for someone just joining a gym or starting a workout regimen.. one who is overweight, because it takes a lot of work and consistency to get the body to say "hey, I think we should drop some poundage".... it gets used to carrying a certain amount of weight and will gladly return to that set-point. For example; many times when someone has an extended stay in a hospital (for whatever reason) they usually come out lighter, everyone notices.. but it's not long before the body is back where it was, where it's comfort-zone lies.

It takes time and many people are impatient. I started young. Muscle does not and is not capable of turning into fat like a lot of people want to believe, but it is capable of covering the muscle with fat after exercise is stopped, and the muscle can atrophy a bit, but if you have not cut calories, the underlying muscle that you built through hard work will stay. That is the plus in starting out early.

I just don't like to eat. Never have, never will. Its like putting diesel in the rig. I have to do it, I dont want to do it, the truck needs fuel to run, and I dont find the stop particularly pleasurable. I never have "seconds" and I always leave the table knowing I could eat more. I dont eat just clean foods, I just dont over-eat. I think that is also a plus.. .knowing that you could easily eat more and just walking away.

Surprisingly, some people get offended with this if you are eating in a group, even if you stop eating. So, at Thanksgiving time, I just go straight for the dessert and dont have any of the healthy stuff... but it seems to make my family happy.

Cutting calories or being fit always seems to upset people that are around you. I actually dont work out a lot anymore, but when I'm not doing much, I eat accodingly. If I'm going to be very busy, I will bump up the calories to fuel the engine.

That's my take on it and that's what works for me.

I took classes for years while I was driving and started with an ISSA certification in personal training (looking for that career after the trucking days subsided) and being in the gym it was kind of a no-brainer. I then got interested more in nutrition than how to lift a piece of iron over your head properly and got a certification in Nutrition through an accredited school. Then when my (now "ex") went through nursing school, I would read her books and help her with her test studies and I took my nutritional knowledge to the next level and became a registered dietitian.

Only problem... (and it can be a great living).. I don't play well with others and already have that diesel running through my veins.

I'll talk about it if someone is looking for food choices in a crappy truckstop and they are actually *****ing about it, but I pretty much just keep everything to myself and continue studying. I study everything; Pharma to hormones to mental health, vitamins, minerals, how our body functions, what crazy foods can do to your mood.... anything to keep me and my crazy head active.

I don't know how much of what I learned is right, but I also know that there are 'many ways to skin a cat"

I know what works for me... and I try to keep it scientific. I like to see references from controlled studies, which are rare. Those studies are costly and they dont support claims made by people just trying to make an easy buck off of a supplement or gimmick.

It's surprising, to say the least, at what is scientifically true vs what most people believe (or have been taught)

The pluses with fibrous carbs are these: 1) you can't get fat off of them because they don't possess any caloric content 2) you can use them to get full instead of fat 3) they do possess vitamins and minerals ..if u don't boil the crap out of them or slather them in butter, greases or mayo 4) they help you take a dump ( not gonna sugar-coat that one) 5) the body burns MORE calories trying to break them down and digest/eliminate them...thus allowing you to actually lose weight and put yourself into a caloriic deficit

Worst part is, most folks don't dig salads over doughnuts... and chewing on a piesmce of raw broccoli isn't actually akin to getting a full-body massage...

Each macronutrient provides a different service. All fats aren't bad, and most are necessary, but they are very easy to go overboard on...but they surely are not the enemy.

Like I said, mixing fats and carbs ( the all-american diet) is the biggest mistake this country makes when eating its favorite foods. Each are a source of energy, but the body ain't gonna use both... Its gonna store one...and I think we all know which one that is.

Carbs are not what's making America the most overweight nation in the world, they aren't helping either, but mixing: cake, candy, cookies, crackers, chips, breads, soups, ice cream.....all blends of fats and carbs...thats what's doing it, oh, and the fact that people gravitate toward the "all you can eat" mentality....best bang for your buck...until they put a 'before and after' scale at the door...and you 'pay by the pound'

It still boils down to eating less calories than your body burns...in the end, but doing it with nothing but simple carbs and fats limits you to not being able to eat nearly as much as you thought at the end of the day.

Also, I guess it would be negligent of me since I'm rambling into LA LA land here without mentioning disease.

People with Diabetes have to be very careful with carbs and prescription insulin. Too easy to screw that one up.

Anyone with a disease related to foods have to approach eating and dieting much differently than a person without disease.

A person w Ciliac Sprue can't eat grains...hell, they are taking a big chance just going out to eat. They have to have a "one on one" with the chef if they don't want an "incident"

People w high cholesterol, high BP, atherosclerosis.... These people all have to take eating very seriously.....but then again...so do fat people too....

Read your literature, the books I mentioned in my last post. Being overweight ain't no joke...and neither is getting old, which, if you just read this, took years off your life...or....added a few!